Reconstruction of remodeling units reveals positive effects after 2 and 12 months of romosozumab treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Romosozumab treatment results in a transient early increase in bone formation and sustained decrease in bone resorption. Histomorphometric analyses revealed that the primary bone-forming effect of romosozumab is a transient early stimulation of modeling-based bone formation on cancellous and endocortical surfaces. Furthermore, preclinical studies have demonstrated that romosozumab may affect changes in the remodeling unit, resulting in positive bone balance. To further investigate the effects of romosozumab on bone balance, mo 12 (M12) and mo 2 (M2) (to analyze early effects) unpaired bone biopsies from the FRAME clinical trial were analyzed using remodeling site reconstruction to assess whether positive changes in bone balance on cancellous/endocortical surfaces may contribute to the progressive improvement in bone mass/structure and reduced fracture risk in osteoporotic women at high fracture risk. At M12, bone balance was higher with romosozumab vs placebo on cancellous (+6.1 vs +1.5 μm; P = .012) and endocortical (+5.2 vs -1.7 μm; P = .02) surfaces; higher bone balance was due to lower final erosion depth (40.7 vs 43.7 μm; P = .05) on cancellous surfaces and higher completed wall thickness (50.8 vs 47.5 μm; P = .037) on endocortical surfaces. At M2, the final erosion depth was lower on the endocortical surfaces (42.7 vs 50.7 μm; P = .021) and was slightly lower on the cancellous surfaces (38.5 vs 44.6 μm; P = .11) with romosozumab vs placebo. Sector analysis of early endocortical formative sites revealed higher osteoid thickness (29.9 vs 19.2 μm; P = .005) and mineralized wall thickness (18.3 vs 11.9 μm; P = .004) with romosozumab vs placebo. These evolving bone packets may reflect the early stimulation of bone formation that contributes to the increase in completed wall thickness at M12. These data suggest that romosozumab induces a positive bone balance due to its effects on bone resorption and formation at the level of the remodeling unit, contributing to the positive effects on bone mass, structure, and fracture risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".